Andrew Brown on New Atheism

Having been sent the link to, as usual, a rather excellent piece: Andrew Brown: The New Atheism, a definition and a quiz I was grateful to find that some of the things that arose in my first conversation appear to be valid (and some of my thinking perhaps valid too - phew).

You can read the piece for yourselves but here's a few interesting segments (italicised for clarity) that jumped out and called for my attention (and perhaps validated some of the thoughts thus far):

"I thought I would try to define the New Atheism that I, and others, so dislike. In part this is difficult because the new atheism is largely a political and social rather than an intellectual movement."

So perhaps my 'red top' readership comment is shared by others. This is rather comforting as one friend asked if I was not being perhaps a little 'snobby' when I posted it. I'm not, but what I'm saying is that it doesn't have the higher reading age of those who are philosophically atheist.

I also loved the use of the word 'synecdoche' (using a part of something to denote the whole: pointyhats for bishops, dogcollars for clergy, etc.) and that he sees in the new atheist approach religion as being:
'A synecdoche for everything that might go wrong, so that belief in the evil qualities of Faith was not so very different from belief in the evils of witchcraft.'

Yes indeedy folk - it is faith, religion, the religious (call them what you will) who are the source of all that was, is and will be wrong. Perhaps science is the new messiah?

I'm rather pleased to see Brown name the prophets, patriarchs and prime movers of the new atheist thing as: 'Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Jerry Coyne, the American physicist Robert L. Park, and a couple of blogging biologists, P Z Myers and Larry Moran.'

And more grateful too that he says of them:
'They have two things in common. They are none of them philosophers and, though most are scientists, none study psychology, history, the sociology of religion, or any other discipline which might cast light on the objects of their execration. All of them make claims about religion and about believers which go far beyond the mere disbelief in God which I take to be the distinguishing mark of an atheist.'

Taking as his model former Master of Balliol and philosopher, Anthony Kenny, t as the datum from which he defines (old) atheism, he says that he (Kenny) would reject the following

❄ There is something called "Faith" which can be defined as unjustified belief held in the teeth of the evidence. Faith is primarily a matter of false propositional belief. 

❄ The cure for faith is science: The existence of God is a scientific question: either he exists or he doesn't. "Science is the only way of knowing – everything else is just superstition" [Robert L. Park] 

❄ Science is the opposite of religion, and will lead people into the clear sunlit uplands of reason. "The real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science is but one form of rationalism, while religion is the most common form of superstition" [Jerry Coyne] 
"I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented." [Dawkins] 

❄ In this great struggle, religion is doomed. Enlightened common sense is gradually triumphing and at the end of the process, humanity will assume a new and better character, free from the shackles of religion. Without faith, we would be better as well as wiser. Conflict is primarily a result of misunderstanding, of which Faith is the paradigm. 
(Looking for links, I just came across a lovely example of this in the endnotes to the Selfish Gene, where lawyers are dismissed as "solving man-made problems that should never have existed in the first place".) 

❄ Religion exists. It is essentially something like American fundamentalist protestantism, or Islam. More moderate forms are false and treacherous: if anything even more dangerous, because they conceal the raging, homicidal lunacy that is religion's true nature. [Sam Harris] 

❄ Faith, as defined above, is the most dangerous and wicked force on earth today and the struggle against it and especially against Islam will define the future of humanity. [Everyone]

Brown concludes by saying:

'All of these propositions will be found in the authors I have cited as well as in the comments to religious articles here. I sometimes think that only the last two are unique to the new atheists: you can certainly find the others in earlier authors. But those are the six doctrines which I would reject when saying rude things about the new atheists.

What would be interesting in comments is if people would score themselves out of six. I expect that one of the most common forms of disagreement would be to claim that you are a three or a four, but none the less the believers are so repulsive and dangerous that the other two points just don't matter. That's how politics works, after all, and the new atheism is interesting as a political or social movement, not an intellectual one."

Again I am grateful to Andrew Brown for adding to the discussion and increasing my understanding (even if it is his view alone :-)  ).

New Atheists - different from the old?

Whilst I am hoping to find some people who will state their cases and explain what they think their position is called and what it believes (or perhaps doesn't), one of the conversations I have had this week was from a someone who was a devotee of Dawkins. They used the man's name repeatedly and spoke of the 'irrational beliefs' and 'delusions' of the 'religious'. They (note: it was them, not me!!) sneered at the philosophical emptiness of the old style atheists, putting them down as merely playing at being atheists.

New atheists, my companion said, 'Weren't interested in conversation but were, 'concerned with ridding the world of the religious faith groups and bringing about a new world order through social, political and educational means. 'We need to teach our kids that there's only us and that the God thing merely brings separation and causes wars, famine and poverty.' 

It is obvious that somewhere in the mix is something fuelled by the actions of fundamentalist believers and the twin towers for they, and other acts of violence, all featured in the conversation. It was also obvious that whilst we might be able to find some commonality between those who consider themselves to be new atheists, there are also very many differences (and for me one of these is that many of those who appeared to embrace it were very much of the red top tabloid variety!).

This is not meant as a put down but as a reference to the simplistic and unquestioning acceptance of some who fail to examine or challenge those whom they quote;  and the manner in which the adoption of the 'blame culture' tactics whereby all the world's ill can be laid at the door of a few groups:
those who have,
the politicians, and
the believers

(Interestingly what appears to the common element in all three is 'God' (really - don't see that but perhaps I wouldn't).

So who are the patriarchs of the new atheist movement ('old atheists' have Russell, Huxley and the like)?

Well, to name but a few there are: Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Robert Park and many other major and minor prophets besides. What is interesting is that I don't see any clear thinkers in terms of philosophy or logic and there's a 'scientific' element (real and pseudo) behind everything which makes me think that perhaps we'd be better off relabelling 'new atheist' as 'enlightenment or renaissance II' (the first being 'if we can understand it we can control it', the second being 'if we use science we can deny it'?).

As the conversation progressed I was told that: 'The old atheists merely appear content to deny the existence of God and consider all the arguments, proofs and statements regarding God as ultimately false - and having thought thus, God disappears in a puff of logic! Not so the new brigade who want more. Their faith in science puts paid to the old faith in God.'

Another interesting observation in the conversation was the view: That just as Christianity trumped the pagan beliefs so too has scientificism (is that really a word?) trumped faith. This is a new world order: one that will see an end to famine, war and inequality for science can be the measure by which justice and order are made real and, 'Science is the only real way of knowing – everything else is just superstitious nonsense'

So perhaps I'm getting a clearer picture of what new atheism is (well in one person's view anyway) in that it is the new Messiah, 'Truth', that will lead us into understanding, knowledge and freedom from the cancer of faith and the multiplicity of gods that call for our attention, obeisance and defence in battle when deemed necessary (For as I was told: 'Remember the crusades and the inquisition, the result of religion!').

'Without faith, we will be better as well as wiser. Conflict is a result of misunderstanding, of which Faith is the paradigm.' (I think this is a paraphrase of Hitchens or Dawkins - can't find the direct quote so would lean towards Dawkins - clarification most welcome).

A nicer way of explaining away wars and conflicts (note I didn't say ALL) and selling the new atheism as the panacea to all ills and the vanquishing force against the evils of faith and religion (I see faith and religion as different things but others appear to see them as synonymous and interchangeable - What is certain is that the intended interpretation is that without 'faith' we will be well, peaceful and of one accord).

What concerns me is that I can see within the conversation that some think a faith in a lack of faith might lead to a new (atheist) world order. I think I'd rather have a faith-based, moral and ethical society (for there is much of that in the faith communities) rather than a function or scientific one!
Perhaps I am unsettled by the hints of things past that made me think we were looking to revisit the past with this striving for the utopic future it promises.

But that might just be me.

Twenty minutes of banging the keyboard, drinking tea and eating toast complete - over to you.

Pax

ps. I have modified this post to show where the comments were from my companion and the underlined segment is intended to show the ownership of the comments relating to the old order of atheism.

Thanks